Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: "engagement members configured and dimensioned to fit" in claim 1 where “members” is the generic placeholder and “configured and dimensioned to fit” is the functional language. (*Note: the specification discloses (Summary of invention para 8) that the engagement members can include a plurality of ridges)
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-9, 13-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bartz (U.S. Patent no. 20130098210).
Regarding claim 1, Bartz discloses:
A wrench (20, Figs 2 and 5, see below, [0017]) for removing a cover on a container comprising:
a) a handle (28) at a proximal region of the wrench (handle is referred to as blade or lever arm, Figs 3, 5 and 7, [0018] [0019]); and
b) a head at a distal region of the wrench (21, Figs 2-4, [0017]), the head having
i) an inner wall (inner wall surface of aperture 22, Fig 3 [0017]);
ii) a plurality of engagement members configured and dimensioned to fit within a plurality of slots of the cover, the plurality of engagement members projecting inwardly toward a center of the head (engagement members defined as ridges or high points between respective shallow portions of ratchet 25 surface, Figs 2-3, [0017]);
iii) a plurality of slots, a slot of the plurality of slots formed between adjacent engagement members (slots defined as shallow portions between respective ridges of ratchet 25 surface, Figs 3 and 5); and
iv) a taper on the inner wall having an angle (taper defined by slope of R2 to R1, Fig 5, [0017]), the angle substantially complementing an angle of an external wall of the cover (understanding that the cover, or details of the cover wall angle, is not positively recited in the claim and that the wrench of Bartz would be capable of complementing an external wall angle of a cover, depending on the particular geometry of the cover).
Figures 2, 3 and 5 for reference:
PNG
media_image1.png
229
441
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
199
388
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
139
429
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Bartz discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses:
wherein the head defines a closed circumferential area (21, Figs 2-4, [0017]).
Regarding claim 3, Bartz discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses:
wherein the head extends around 360 degrees to engage the cover around 360 degrees of the external wall of the cover (21, Figs 2-4, [0017]).
Regarding claim 4, Bartz discloses of the limitations of claim 3, as described above, and further discloses:
wherein the taper of extends around 360 degrees around the head (Figs 2 and 5, [0017]).
Regarding claim 5, Bartz discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses:
wherein the angle of the taper of the inner wall of the head exceeds an angle of the taper of the external wall of the cover (the cover is not positively recited in the claims and the taper defined by slope of R2 to R1 is capable of exceeding a cover’s taper angle, depending on the particular geometry of the cover, Fig 5, [0017]).
Regarding claim 6, Bartz discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses:
wherein the angle of the taper of the head converges relative to a surface angle of the cover, thereby increasing the interference with the cover and enabling higher torque to be applied (the cover is not positively recited in the claims and the taper profile defined by slope of R2 to R1 is capable of converging relative to a surface angle of a cover, depending on the particular geometry of the cover, Fig 5, [0017]).
Regarding claim 7, Bartz discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses:
wherein the head conforms to a profile of the cover uniformly around a circumference of the cover (depending on the particular geometry and scale of the cover Fig 5 [0017]).
Regarding claim 8, Bartz discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses:
wherein the head engages the cover on multiple planes in an interference engagement (any particular structure of the cover has not been positively recited, so that depending on the particular geometry and scale of the cover, the taper profile defined by slope of R2 to R1 is capable of engaging a cover on multiple planes in an interference engagement shown by annotated Fig 5 below illustrating two example tangential planes, understanding these planes exist around the circumference of the aperture, and a horizontal plane, Figs 2 and 5 [0017]).
PNG
media_image4.png
154
433
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, Bartz discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses:
wherein the plurality of engagement members includes a plurality of ridges extending inwardly from the internal wall of the head toward the center of the head (the ridges defined as described above, the peaks projecting inwardly from the surface of the aperture towards the center of the head, Figs 2-5 [0017]).
Regarding claim 13, Bartz discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses:
wherein the head has a central transverse axis extending transverse to a longitudinal axis of the wrench and passes through a center of the head, and the taper of the inner wall of the head tapers outwardly in a direction away from the central transverse axis (Annotated Fig 5 shown below to illustrate an example central transverse axis extending transverse to an example longitudinal axis of the wrench while passing through a center of the head and the taper extending outwardly from the axis).
PNG
media_image5.png
142
418
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 14, Bartz discloses the limitations of claim 13, as described above, and further discloses:
wherein the angle of the taper of the inner wall of the head is equal to an inwardly extending angle of the external wall of the cap (any particular structure of the cover has not been positively recited, so that depending on the particular geometry and scale of the cover, the angle of the taper profile defined by slope of R2 to R1 is capable of equaling an inwardly extending angle of the external wall of the cap on a cover Figs 2 and 5 [0017]).
Regarding claim 15, Bartz discloses the limitations of claim 14, as described above, and further discloses:
wherein the angle of the taper of the inner wall of the head is greater than an inwardly extending angle of the external wall of the cap (any particular structure of the cover has not been positively recited, so that depending on the particular geometry and scale of the cover, the angle of the taper profile defined by slope of R2 to R1 is capable of exceeding an inwardly extending angle of the external wall of the cap on a cover Figs 2 and 5 [0017]).
Regarding claim 17, Bartz discloses:
A wrench (20, Figs 2 and 5, [0017]) for removing a cover on a container comprising:
a) a handle (28) at a proximal region (handle is referred to as blade, Figs 3, 5 and 7, [0018] [0019]); and
b) a head at a distal region (21, Figs 2-4, [0017]), the head defining a closed area extending around 360 degrees (shown by the closed circular area of 21, Figs 2-4, [0017]), the head having an inner wall (inner wall surface of aperture 22, Fig 3 [0017]) having a taper angled outwardly with respect to a central transverse axis of the head (taper defined by slope of R2 to R1, Fig 5, [0017]), the taper angle being equal to or greater than an inwardly tapering angle of the cover (understanding that the cover, or details of the cover wall angle, is not positively recited in the claim and that the wrench of Bartz would be capable of equaling or exceeding an inwardly tapering angle of a cover, depending on the particular geometry of the cover).
Regarding claim 18, Bartz discloses the limitations of claim 17, as described above, and further discloses:
The wrench of claim 17, further comprising
i) a plurality of ridges extending inwardly from an internal wall of the head toward a center of the head (engagement members defined as ridges or high points between respective shallow portions of ratchet 25 surface, Fig 3, [0017]); and
ii) a plurality of slots (slots defined as shallow portions between respective ridges of ratchet 25 surface, Figs 3 and 5).
Regarding claim 19, Bartz discloses the limitations of claim 17, as described above, and further discloses:
The wrench of claim 17, wherein the angle of the taper (taper defined by slope of R2 to R1, Fig 5, [0017]) of the inner wall of the head is equal to an inwardly extending angle of an external wall of the cap (understanding that the cover, or details of the cover wall angle, is not positively recited in the claim and that the wrench of Bartz would be capable of equaling an inwardly tapering angle of a cover, depending on the particular geometry of the cover).
Regarding claim 20, Bartz discloses the limitations of claim 17, as described above, and further discloses:
The wrench of claim 17, wherein the angle of the taper (taper defined by slope of R2 to R1, Fig 5, [0017]) of the inner wall of the head is greater than an inwardly extending angle of an external wall of the cap (understanding that the cover, or details of the cover wall angle, is not positively recited in the claim and that the wrench of Bartz would be capable of exceeding an inwardly tapering angle of a cover, depending on the particular geometry of the cover).
Claims 1, 10, 12 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hood (U.S. Patent no. 20080083302).
Regarding claim 1, Hood discloses:
A wrench (100, Figs 1 and 2) for removing a cover on a container comprising:
a) a handle at a proximal region of the wrench (110 and 120, Figs 1-4 shown below, [0031]); and
b) a head at a distal region of the wrench (Figs 1-4, [0031] [0032]), the head having
i) an inner wall (Figs 2 and 4, [0033]);
ii) a plurality of engagement members configured and dimensioned to fit within a plurality of slots of the cover, the plurality of engagement members projecting inwardly toward a center of the head (Figs 2 and 4, [0041] [0042]);
iii) a plurality of slots, a slot of the plurality of slots formed between adjacent engagement members (The slots are formed between the “gripping portions” seen in Figs 2 and 4, [0041] [0042]); and
iv) a taper on the inner wall having an angle (Taper formed by the triangular arrangement or the V-shaped arrangement Figs 2 and 4 [0043] [0044] [0045]), the angle substantially complementing an angle of an external wall of the cover (understanding that the cover, or details of the cover wall angle, is not positively recited in the claim and that the wrench of Hood would be capable of complementing an external wall angle of a cover, depending on the particular geometry of the cover).
Figures 1-4 for reference:
PNG
media_image6.png
702
499
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
773
472
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, Hood discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses:
wherein the plurality of engagement members are arranged in an asymmetric pattern (Figs 1, 2 and 4 illustrate the asymmetrical arrangement of engagement members (151, 152, 161, 162).
Regarding claim 12, Hood discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses:
further comprising a ratcheting mechanism (Figs 4-6 and 8 illustrate the ratcheting mechanism [0014] [0036] [0037] [0038]).
Regarding claim 16, Hood discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further discloses:
wherein the head forms an open area extending less than 180 degrees (Figs 1 and 7 exhibit the jar opener in the open position demonstrating the tool’s ability to form an open area of less than 180 degrees [0034]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bartz in view of Hsieh (U.S. Patent no. 6145414).
Regarding claim 11, Bartz discloses the limitations of claim 1, as described above, Bartz fails to teach a wrench wherein one or more of the plurality of engagement members is wider than an adjacent member.
Regarding claim 11, Hsieh teaches a wrench (Fig 14) wherein one or more of the plurality of engagement members is wider than an adjacent member (the longitudinal lengths of the first tooth (11) and the second (12) and third teeth (13) are designed at a ratio of 4:3:3, Fig 15-20 [3]).
Bartz and Hsieh are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor: hand tools. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the hand tool of Bartz to incorporate the teachings of Hsieh and provide a wrench wherein one or more of the plurality of engagement members is wider than an adjacent member. This would produce the predictable result of positively grasping and turning covers or caps of covers [3].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. U.S. Patent no. 20130283979 a Cap Wrench for Military Style Fuel Cans teaches an opening tool with a head, a handle and specialized engagement member geometry. U.S. Patent no. 20080072709 a Container Top Opener with Directionally Inclined Gripping Ribs teaches an opening tool with a head containing tapered engagement members in the inner wall of the head.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN M LARSON whose telephone number is (571) 272-2765. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-5:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Brian Keller can be reached at 571-272-8548. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/J.M.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/HADI SHAKERI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723